U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sits down to testify on the September attack on U.S. diplomatic sites in Benghazi, Libya during a hearing held by the U.S.Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, January 23, 2013.

Hillary Clinton’s testimony before Congress on Wednesday had it all: laughter and tears, anger and poignancy. On one of her last days as Secretary of State—John Kerry could be confirmed as her successor within days—Clinton spent a long day answering often-hostile questions from two different oversight panels about the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that claimed the lives of four Americans.

Clinton’s testimony produced plenty of heat but little new light on the attacks. Some Republicans, first on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and later the House Foreign Affairs Committee, charged that Clinton should be held responsible for inadequate security at the compound where Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed and suggested that she’d been part of a White House effort to mislead Congress and the public about the true nature of a terrorist attack that struck at the height of the presidential campaign.

Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said Clinton should have resigned following the attack and accused her of “a failure of leadership.”* Senator John McCain called Clinton’s answers “not satisfactory.” McCain said he was disappointed that the State Department, and particularly Clinton herself, had not been more aware of the dire security situation in Benghazi and the Tripoli embassy’s repeated cable requests for more security resources. Clinton insisted that those complaints had not risen to her level. Her department, she later told the House panel, receives “1.4 million cables, all of them addressed to me. I don’t read them all.”

As they have for months, Republicans harped on United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice’s comments on various television networks the Sunday following the attack that it had been the product of a protest gone awry. Clinton repeatedly pointed out that at the time of the attack U.S. embassies in Yemen, Cairo, Tunis and Khartoum were all under assault because of violent protests over an American-made video mocking the Prophet Mohamed, so it took “several days” to fully determine that the Benghazi attack was not related to those protests. She also noted that an independent panel’s report on the attack found that what exactly happened in Benghazi remains murky and many of the lingering questions may never be fully answered.

But it was Republican charges that the administration had distorted the facts about Benghazi for political reasons that drew Clinton’s real ire. During one exchange with Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Clinton pounded her hand on the table. “[P]eople have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans… nothing could be further from the truth,” Clinton said, her voice rising. “Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”

Democrats, meanwhile, focused on Republican cuts to State Department funding, which they say led to the security lapses in Benghazi. Clinton repeatedly noted that her department’s requests have been consistently underfunded, sometimes by as much as 10%. Panel Democrats also noted that other intelligence lapses have cost America more dearly. “We were told by every level of government here there were Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that justified a war,” said Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat. “We are still searching for those weapons. They didn’t exist. Thousands of Americans lost their lives. Let’s hold a hearing on that.”

Clinton said the State Department is implementing all 29 recommendations the independent panel suggested to prevent another Benghazi-type attack from happening again. She also said she appointed the first ever deputy secretary of State responsible for high-risks posts and implemented an annual review by the secretary over such posts.

But Clinton was passionate when talking about her hope that the attack would not cause America to retreat from places like Benghazi. “When America is absent, especially from unstable environments, there are consequences: Extremism takes root, our interests suffer, our security at home is threatened,” she said. She said the Arab Spring represented not only an ongoing risk, but an opportunity for the U.S. — a chance to help build democracy across the Middle East and northern Africa.

And she became especially emotional when talking about how hard it was calling and meeting with the families of the Americans who lost their lives. “For me, this is not just a matter of policy. It’s personal. I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews,” she said, her voice breaking. “I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, the sisters and brothers, the sons and daughters, and the wives left alone to raise their children.”

Clinton strove to close the book on the “political football” of Benghazi. And perhaps she succeeded. Republicans looking to score new points against Clinton or Obama probably left the hearings disappointed. And with Rice sidelined and Clinton about to depart, further hearings on the tragic episode seem unlikely. There may be important security issues left to discuss, but Benghazi without politics is a much less interesting subject to Capitol Hill.

There does however remain the question of presidential politics—not so much Obama’s re-election campaign, but Clinton’s own potential aspirations. As Clinton leaves her post, she is among the most popular politicians in America, with 65% percent of Americans approving of her, according to a January Pew poll, and just 29% holding an unfavorable view of her. For the moment, it does not appear that Benghazi will be an obstacle to a potential new chapter in Hillary Clinton’s epic political story. “You will be sorely missed, but I hope not for too long,” Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, slyly suggested. “I wish you well in your future endeavors,” quipped Rep. Steve Chabot, an Ohio Republican. “Mostly.”

I guess tomrrow when the new book by Brandon Webb, a former Navy SEAL, and Jack Murphy, a former Green Beret, comes out Jay Newton-Small will not cover it or discuss the abuses by the CIA or FBI. No, its not Hillary's fault it is an undeclared war or assinations by this administration that caused the situation that escalated into the murders of four Americans. Read it and decide for yourself.

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51. February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Truck bomb kills 17. February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards. July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan. Suicide bomber kills two. December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded. March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat directly targeted by the assailants. September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria. Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded. January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece. A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured. July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed. March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana’a, Yemen. Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls’ school instead. September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana’a, Yemen. Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

While most of the public think that the Administration could have done better in Benghazi, the sad fact for those seeking political advantage is that the Benghazi tragedy is not a high priority concern for most. In fact, except for those seeking political leverage most of the public will devote more time watching and rating Superbowl commercials.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): “It has been suggested the budget cuts are responsible for lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally, was there any budget consideration and lack of budget that led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

STATE DEPARTMENT DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS CHARLENE LAMB: “No, sir.” (U.S. House Of Representatives, Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Hearing, 10/10/12)

The lies of the Obama regime and it's lackeys continue to this very day.

Does it infuriate anyone but me that we pay these people to be on a committee - the purpose of which should be to gather information in order to craft legislation to solve problems - but they spend their time not asking questions, but blowing hot political air and grandstanding, and then putting a question mark at the end of their diatribe? Why are we paying these people to huff and puff and try to be as obnoxious as possible?

Cudos to Hillary Clinton - a woman with a hard drive of facts in her brain. She was prepared; she was honest; she attempted to answer even the most ridiculous of charges, all the while showing grit, compassion, intelligence, thoughtfulness and pragmatism toward finding answers to problems, and moving our country forward. If only we could say the same about the Senators and Representatives.

If Hillary Clinton does not run for President in 2016, this country will be the poorer for her decision.

@ArxFerrum I can't believe you could take an out-of-context soundbite and run with it with such ignorant glee. If you could take the time to actually know the context...well, that's me being silly and assuming you care about that, and aren't just thumping the republican propaganda drum.

Meanwhile, those of us who watched more than four seconds of the proceedings can look at comments like yours and feel bad for those who have to put up with your ignorance.

That would be odd since it was Valerie Jarret and Hillary's decision to lead Obama by the nose into Libya. They were aided in that by Samantha Power and Susan Rice. These four gals led Barack Hussein Obama into Libya with absolutely no plan for and end game.

It was Steven's decision not to have more security, because he was trying to remain low key, and reach out to the population; his fear was that too much military presence would undermine the mission there.

That's from the NY Times.

But Steven's himself raised concerns that the security forces from Libya weren't enough in the time leading up to the attack.

Of course most people with a functional cortex knows that request for additional security was not for Benghazi. Apparently GOP congress critters are not aware of it and not the sycophants that spam blogs with this nostrum.

@hrc2012"...they spend their time not asking questions, but blowing hot political
air and grandstanding, and then putting a question mark at the end of
their diatribe?"

Lawrence O'Donnell just explained yesterday why this is so. The reason is because most of these blowhards don't actually know anything, work very hard to hide what idiots they are, and the people who are testifying are typically smart and well-informed, as was obviously the case here. Many times, they also don't want to hear the uncomfortable truths that contradict their political lies. Again, see Republicans/Benghazi.

This is like the F&F investigation. It was used as a political hamfisted attempt to put Obama in a bad light but it offered absolutely no solutions to the actual problem.

What have been done about the thousands getting killed in the drug war due to assault weapons gun runned to Mexico or the threat to our border agents in the process?

Nothing. Once it turned out to be nothing the investigation dropped like a rock and that was it. Yet border agents are still at risk and more people are getting killed. That's why the GOP congress critters are worthless.

Now take Benghazi - the man so many rightwinger salivates over right now, Rand Paul, is one of the people who argue for defunding not only the security at our embassies but our foreign assets over all. And that's the one who seem to scream the loudest about how incompetent Hillary have been.

With the one exception that the last attack took place on the jihadist's holiest day of the year eleven full years after the day that made 9/11 holy for Islamic fanatics and it happened in one of the most dangerous cities for Americans in the world except for maybe Chicago.

@outsider2011@HerbertKaine I heard the opposite, that there were several requests for more security, but Pred Jarrett vetoed them because a) it would offend the locaks and b) since we had liberated Libya, there was no one who would be angry at us. Even if Stevens didnt request more security, we should have more in Benghazi than we do in safe places such as Paris or London

I take what I read in the NYT with a grain of salt. I suspect you do too

Most people are ignorant of the fact that it was the Obama policy of keeping a low profile in Libya that got Ambassador Stevens and his three colleagues killed. While State was pinching pennies in Benghazi it was wasting $100,000 for an electric car charger in Vienna.

@mantisdragon91@paulejb Why isn't Paule yelling that we need to invade Mali? It's all part of the same African takeover. Clinton: "Benghazi didn't happen in a vacuum. The Arab revolutions have scrambled power dynamics and shattered security forces across the region."

There was security, along with the extremely pro-American free Libyan government forces, which did succeed in re-securing the Consulate--but not before a fire was started which killed 2 of 4 hiding in a saferoom. 9 hours later a lucky mortar round killed the two ex-Seals far away, at the CIA Annex. You talk as if this was the Little Big Horn in terms of some colossal error in judgement. It wasn't; security very nearly was adequate. And it was not Clinton's idea for the Ambassador to be in Benghazi that day. It was the Ambassador's own choice to hole up in a Consulate on 9-11, rather than in the better protected embassy.

Again - the extra security was NOT for BENGHAZI. The fact that I dropped the hint and you as a drone glaze over it like a mindless zombie makes me think that GOP and its base are a couple years behind basic fundamental logic.

Obama is only put in a bad light because the Obama regime is packed with feckless incompetents who couldn't find their own arses with two hands and a road map.

Not at all. They tried before the election and voters rejected the other guy. Time and time again you keep arguing for a fantasy that a majority find incomprehensible and moronic.

No Bugs, that dog won't hunt. Obama and his merry band of left wing looters and pillagers have been in control for four years now. They are presiding over the final decline of the American society.

Again, this has already been shot down. By a majority of the population. The economy is getting stronger despite the party of no and with it our fiscal situation that is slowly improving. The more vocal the fringe (you get) the more obvious it becomes for a majority of people that you and your representatives do no offer solutions; only further entrenchment in what's causing our economy to sputter.